[Nixie]

Quote:

haven't heard them vs non-cry versions of the same cables

Well that's all that matters. Try this for fun, and don't take it too seriously:

ABC w/hidden reference test
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get cryoed and non-crioed versions of the cable. Get a friend. Label the cryoed cable 'C' with a piece of tape -- this is the reference (if you think the other cable is more transparent, then use it as the reference instead). Make a tape labelled '1' and another labelled '2', and attach them to the cables. Get in your listening position, facing away from your friend, and tell him/her to randomly pick (rolling a dice to be sure) either A=1,B=2 or A=2,B=1, and write it down (without telling you!). If you use a preamp that can selects between inputs, or a quality switchbox, this increases the chance of a positive result, since manual switching is usually too slow for audio memory. You can ask your friend to switch to any one of A, B, or C at any time, and you can control the music source as you please. Then decide which one, A or B, you believe to be the reference C. Now the critical part: repeat this several times, preferably at least ten. For every trial, your friend should roll the dice for a new random assignment of A and B to cables 1 and 2. Optionally, you can allow one cables to be assigned both letters. Generally, if there's no difference, then you'll pick the right cable about 50% by chance. Precision of the test incerases with the number of trials.

I've actually heard differences between interconnects in such a test, but they are generally very small and it takes a long time to pick them out. This would be much improved if you get the computer to drive the switchbox/preamp, since you don't have to give verbal command to a friend, taking away from the concentration. It's easier to click on a button. This way also the test is double blind.

 

[1UP]

I can't be arsed to do that!

 

[Jam_Master_J]

I've got access to liquid nitrogen at school, maybe I could try this on my own when classes start up again.

 

[kevin gilmore]

You need to keep the cables at liquid nitrogen temperatures for
a few days. Dump what you want in a 40 litre dewar, fill to the
top, and let it sit till all the N2 evaporates. Typically about 2 weeks.

 

[Todd R]

Before you guys dismiss this, you might want to check out some places that do cold treating like Cryogenics International. Do a search, there are lots of companies that perform this service.

Don't confuse this with the quack tweaks like putting things in your deep freezer, it's not even the same thing.

"Deep cryogenics is the ultra low temperature processing of materials to enhance their desired metallurgical and structural properties. In our case, this is a temperature about -320°F, -196°C, or 77°K. These ultra cold temperatures are achieved using computer controls, a well-insulated treatment chamber and liquid nitrogen (LN2)".
The parts are slowly cooled over the course of a day, and then held at temperature for about a day, and then slowly warmed back to room temp.
So no, you won't be able to do this at school

.

It is a real, permanent process that has many uses in addition to audio.
Back when I was a machinist, we had tools and some cold forming dies treated, and they did last considerably longer.

I was considering getting a machine and start a side business doing this, but the cheapest one I have located was $13,000.

As far as audio goes, it works there too.

I had a pair of speakers that I sent in to be upgraded to the latest version. When I got them back, they played slightly louder, the bass was stronger, and sounded more refined. Quite a nice improvement.
When I pressed the manufacturer for the details of the upgrade, he finally admitted, the only change was substituting Cryo treated crossover components. No other changes.

Recently I was sent a set of Cryo treated 6JN6 output tubes for my Berning ZH270 amp from my dealer (no charge!). They also sounded considerably better.

Jam_Master_J, if he's only charging $10 extra it might be worth a try.

 

[Nixie]

There was a discussion at roguesci.org for DIY construction of a freezer that could do comparable temperatures, but not 40 gallons. From what I remember, somebody actually built it. Of course, I don't know how many people have 40 gallons of cables.

 

[Jam_Master_J]

I suppose I'll go ahead and get it. For $10 any potential benefit is worth it I'd say.

 

[Nixie]

For $10 you can feed ten starving third world country children for a day.

You know why audiophiles are afraid of blind tests? Because deep down inside they know there's no difference, and they want to suppress any more indicators to that end, lest they are no longer able to pleasantly fool themselves.

 

[Nixie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd R "Deep cryogenics is the ultra low temperature processing of materials to enhance their desired metallurgical and structural properties." ... It is a real, permanent process that has many uses in addition to audio.

No one is disputing the usefulness in cryogenics in other areas. Actually, it is audio that doesn't have a use for it -- other than making money by selling something that cannot possibly make an audible difference. What you quoted says it: metallurgical and structural, not electrical.

I thought this was the DIY forum, where (amateur)engineers talk, not the cables forum, where the mystics and the naive marks hang out.

To be fair, much fault goes to the other side as well, of those like D. Self who assume that measurement apparatus and the distortion metrics they use carry significant meaning as far as auditory perception is concerned -- they do not, of course; THD, IMD, etc., in general have no correlation with perceptual measurements (the latter can very much be scientific, viz blind tests). On both sides people forget that perception can be objectively studied. Otherwise psychology wouldn't be a science (well, it only really became a science when cognitivism took over in the 80s).

 

[Todd R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nixie No one is disputing the usefulness in cryogenics in other areas. Actually, it is audio that doesn't have a use for it -- other than making money by selling something that cannot possibly make an audible difference. What you quoted says it: metallurgical and structural, not electrical.

Since cryogenic treatment of metals aligns the crystalline structure and reduces stress, why wouldn't that make it a more effective and quieter conductor?

"Problem:

It is well known that disparate materials used in connectors, solder joints, pc board circuitry as well as residual stresses and gaps within the lattice structure of materials all serve to degrade and/or hamper sound reproduction. These imperfections are caused by the un-even cooling and shrinkage of the liquid or molten material into a solid. All these imperfections cause noise. Electronic noise often contributes to a lack of focus, detail and resolution in audio and lack of sharpness and color definition in video.

Solution:

Reduce or eliminate the inherent stresses and other imperfections which cause noise, through precise deep cryogenic processing. Our process removes built-in stress, reforms microstructure and uniforms or blends solder junctions and connections to improve the free flow of current. The result is greater transparency and less noise."

Remember,
I have personal experience with what cryogenic treatments can do for audio. If it didn't do anything I would have said so!
Why you guys always doubt the people who've actually tried something, without trying it yourself, I'll never understand.
TR

 

[Nixie]

First of all, where does that quote come from? I dare the original source to submit this to a peer reviewed publication!

Quote:

Why you guys always doubt the people who've actually tried something, without trying it yourself, I'll never understand.

I've performed a blind ABC with hidden reference test of the same geometry cables, one with regular copper and one with OFC high purity copper (not mine, I use silver for my interconnects, not because I think it makes a difference, but because it's cool). If that doesn't make a difference, even less likely cryo would. Five people, two of them audiophiles, were the subjects (excluding myself). No statistically positive result after ten trials per person. This doesn't prove it's not audible, but is evidence towards that end. I'd be perfectly happy to place a bet on a large trial. Just find enough willing participants.

Quote:

It is well known ...

Well known by whom? Readers of that rag Stereophile and AudioAsylum members, I bet.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nixie I use silver for my interconnects, not because I think it makes a difference, but because it's cool.

Sorry if I misunderstood, but are you saying that there is no audible difference between copper cable and silver cable? I know that on my system, silver was very bright and by using a copper interconnect everything had much more synergy. This was not a subtle change and many people at the Detroit meet [everyone who listened to both] thought the copper was clearly superior.

 

[Nixie]

Do both cables have the same geometry, and the same conductor gauge? You can only make a meaningful comparison if you control for all other differences.

If they were indeed the same in all other respects than the conductor material, then I'm willing to place a bet on a negative result on a blind test for any subjects you choose. I will probably come to Ontario in the fall for a bit, so if you are up to it...

 

[Todd R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nixie First of all, where does that quote come from? I dare the original source to submit this to a peer reviewed publication!

It came from http://www.cryogenicsinternational.com/, the page I referenced in my first post. Click the tab that says Audio. Apparently you didn't bother to read it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nixie performed a blind ABC with hidden reference test of the same geometry cables, one with regular copper and one with OFC high purity copper (not mine, I use silver for my interconnects, not because I think it makes a difference, but because it's cool). If that doesn't make a difference, even less likely cryo would. Five people, two of them audiophiles, were the subjects (excluding myself). No statistically positive result after ten trials per person. This doesn't prove it's not audible, but is evidence towards that end. I'd be perfectly happy to place a bet on a large trial. Just find enough willing participants.

Actually a test like that is going on right now:
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=72890
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=116203

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nixie Do both cables have the same geometry, and the same conductor gauge? You can only make a meaningful comparison if you control for all other differences.

Not sure, good point.

I have heard silver/copper cables by the same manufacturer in the past and heard a difference, but preffered silver in that test. That was with my old system that was less resolving though. I'm not completely sure that they were the same gauge in that case, but terminations and geometry were definately the same. Oh well, I prefer my copper IC's in any case... regardless of the reason.

Hmmm... I am still of the mind that if you listen to two components and hear a difference [preferring one] that means the difference is in fact there. I dont make a habit of doubting my senses.